E.T. the Extra Terrestrial

After it had been out for about a month, I finally got around to seeing E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Perhaps I was too busy seeing Poltergeist over and over again to make the effort? Actually, I think the main reason may have been an attempt to avoid lines. The movie was huge.

I'd end up seeing it twice, but I only have a memory of one time, and I'm not sure if it was the first or second time. I'd think it was the first, as that would make more of an impression, so I'm going to say the first time I saw E.T. was with my father at the Grand Lake in Oakland.

We didn't venture across the Bay often. If we did, it was usually to go to a show at the Greek, or to buy records in Berkeley. But I think we decided to make the trip this time because of a fondness for the Grand Lake, and we were lucky in that the movie was playing in the bigger main theater. Because, yes, as much as I love the Grand Lake, (and it's still in operation), I would love it so much more if it wasn't chopped up into multiple screens.

It might seem a little odd that of the two Spielberg movies that came out in 1982, I was more taken with Poltergeist than with E.T. And don't get me wrong, I really liked E.T. a LOT. But it didn't seem to get a hold of me as much as Poltergeist did. I think this probably had to do with my general preference for horror movies as opposed to science fiction.

It might also have been because E.T. was (and still is) an emotionally wrenching thing to sit through. I mean, we watch the poor creature suffer and die! And poor Elliot! I know I was basically sobbing in that first viewing.

And yeah, I also cried during the sappy ending, which really is Spielberg at his most mawkish. (That part's a little hard to sit through in repeat viewings, just because I get a headache from all the eye rolling I do.)

And I guess that is as good an explanation as any as to why I preferred Poltergeist to E.T. Poltergeist has its incredibly sappy parts, too; but it also has a guy tearing his own face off. It wins.

I have a bunch of clippings in my Book. For this first post, here's a review from the Examiner, and some capsule reviews from other local sources.

Blade Runner ²

My second viewing of Blade Runner also took place at the Coronet. I don't have any memory of it, so couldn't say what time of day it was, or who I went with. If I marked the date down correctly, it was a Monday, but since the movie is rated R, it seems unlikely I went alone. I think there might have been a few times when one of my parents would buy the ticket, but not actually go to the movie, but I'm not sure if this was one of those times.

Obviously, Blade Runner deserves more than one viewing. Even if you don't dig the story that much, or the characters, it's a visual feast, and you can't take it in with just one viewing. I mean, I can watch it over and over again just for Rachel's hair alone.



So. That scene. It's the best hair scene in the movie, of course. But as a love scene, it always just skeeved me out. Harrison Ford looks ghastly, he's basically assaulting her, and it's supposed to end in love? I don't buy it. I get that he's an asshole, but I think when it comes to his relationship with Rachel, it's supposed to be the one place he's caring and human, with full irony intended. But there's nothing romantic about that moment between them.

Back to the visuals. If you were to put this movie side by side with a movie full of CG cityscapes, I think Blade Runner would always win. Always. Director Ridley Scott has announced he is working on a sequel, and this worries me for a few reasons. One, because I just don't think it could ever look as awesome as the first one. And two, after seeing the mess that is Prometheus, I'm very worried about his abilities when it comes to revisiting past works...

But, maybe the reaction to Prometheus will have some affect on him, and on the kind of story he decides to tell. We've got at least two years to wait and see.

Only one more thing from my Genre Book: A newspaper ad from the Chronicle's Pink Section.

Poltergeist (V)

Another day in the middle of the week, in the middle of summer vacation. Another day with not much to do. Another day in which I saw Poltergeist at the Northpoint.

I wonder if the people who worked there noticed I had been there four previous times at this point? The theater was never very crowded on those weekend viewings, so maybe a 12-year-old girl by herself at the movies over and over gained a comment or two?

Probably not. They were most likely bored teenagers just a tad older than me.

Here are a couple more reviews I saved, one from the Examiner, and another from Trashola...

Blade Runner

Seeing Blade Runner for the first time in 1982 was another sneak preview experience. It was a Thursday, so it was just the night before the film opened, and I'm not sure if it was a public screening, or one in which you needed a pass to get in. (I'm going to try and confirm it was one or the other during a trip to the library.)

The preview was at my beloved Coronet, and I remember since it was so crowded, we had to sit a lot further back in the "loge" than we usually preferred to sit. I'd have better seats the second time I went to go see it, about two weeks later.

I loved the movie, but apparently not enough to give it a five on my rating scale; it garnered a mere four-and-a-half. I think even then I could see there were two big problems with the movie: Harrison Ford's awful narration, and the silly happy ending. I remember thinking, "If there's a place so beautiful and green and free out there, why doesn't everyone take advantage of it?"

I've got the deluxe five disc DVD set that comes in a "Voight-Kampff" briefcase, and rewatched the 1982 version, and indeed, after being exposed to versions that don't have Ford's deadpan narration throughout, it's kind of painful to sit through. Still, I was able to look past that enough when I first saw it to realize it was a pretty amazing movie.

Of course, at the time, it got its fair share of bad reviews, (as you can see below), and it was a flop. Its box office failure probably had a lot to do with E.T.'s dominance at the ticket booth, but also with Harrison Ford's presence in the movie. Raiders of the Lost Ark had been released the year before, and was, of course, a huge hit, so at that point, Ford was both Han Solo AND Indiana Jones in the public eye. But in Blade Runner, he's an asshole who shoots women, (OK, fine, a replicant woman) in the back, and gets his ass kicked (more than once!) by androids. (A friend at the time, who had a HUGE crush on Harrison Ford, was totally grossed out that he makes-out with, as she called Rachel, "that fake robot." I appreciate the contradiction in that statement.)

Most of the reviews praised its visuals, but felt the story was flimsy; it was all show and no soul (kind of like a replicant!), but obviously, it's stood the test of time. I think even if the various "director's cuts" hadn't been released, Blade Runner would still have ended up being considered one of the best science fiction films of all time.

Also, it takes place in 2019, so does that mean we're only seven years from off world colonies and flying cars? I can't wait!!

I'll have some more to say about it in another post, so for now, here's a less-than stellar review from the Examiner, plus some capsule reviews from the Chronicle:

And a review from the East Bay Express, continued on a second scan, where you can also see a review from Trashola.

Poltergeist (Four)

June 22nd, 1982. A Tuesday. What to do?

I know! GO SEE POLTERGEIST AGAIN!

Which I did. Still at the Northpoint, I'm pretty sure.

Here's a depressing fact: I am now older than the parents in the movie were supposed to be, and indeed, am older than both Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams were at the time.

I don't think I've ever been as "adult" as that, and I probably never will be! And to prove it, I'm going to be really juvenile and post the only truly gross scene in the movie. Enjoy!

The Thing

My first exposure to John Carpenter's The Thing came at a fantasy/comic book/horror/science fiction convention that I can't, for the life of me, remember the name of. It wasn't WonderCon; it wasn't Comi-Con; it wasn't Space-Con. I'm sure buried in some box under a pile of junk in my storage unit is a program from that convention, but until I unearth that, it may remain a mystery.

It was held in the Holiday Inn on Van Ness and California, and was tiny compared to the conventions we see today, but was still full of nerds selling comics and movie memorabilia, and, of course, at least one presentation of that "Star Trek" blooper reel.

I know I went to this particular convention with my father at least twice. I think 1982 was the first time, and the following year, after I had seen and become obsessed with Cat People, I spent most of my time looking for collectible stuff related to that movie, things like foreign posters, or lobby cards and film stills. I did end up finding some stuff, and would usually trade one or two Blue Harvest t-shirts for the loot. (At that time, those shirts were rare and coveted, and because my dad had access to the original screens that printed them, he could run off a dozen or so and use them for trade. Come to think of it, it was almost like printing money. Or at least printing nerd money.)

The convention must have taken place early in the year, as it was several months before The Thing's June release, and we were treated to about a ten minute scene from the film. The funny thing is, the print they had was 70mm, and while they had a 70mm projector to screen it with, they didn't have a screen big enough, so we had to watch it shrunk down to what was, essentially, the size of a big modern day TV screen. This is the first half of that scene, (the second part, not seen here, is when they find the flying saucer buried in the ice).



I was already a John Carpenter fan, so was definitely excited to see The Thing, and the clip only validated that excitement. My dad was also keen on seeing it, as he was a fan of the original film, and seeing that one in a theater as a kid was one of his most memorable movie going experiences.

We ended up seeing it at the Royal Theater, at a sneak preview showing. Back then, sneak preview screenings weren't really secret, and you didn't always need passes to get in. They'd just run an ad in the paper announcing the film, time, and theater, and you'd show up. There would usually be a line, but there usually was on opening night, too, so it wasn't any less convenient.

So, we got to see it the Sunday before it opened, sat in the balcony, and loved every slimy minute of it.

Of course, as is proving to be the case with a lot of these 1982 films, what are now considered classics, weren't always loved at the time, and that's certainly the case with The Thing. As I ended up seeing it a second time the following month, I'll save some of my further thoughts about it for another post, and leave you with a few of the film's less-than-stellar reviews...

Poltergeist (3)

Five days after seeing Poltergeist for a second time, I went and saw it AGAIN.

Get used to it. Three more viewings to go!

Because of that, I'll limit this post to a few clippings. Below are some reviews; the big one's from the Examiner. The review is continued on the second scan.

Poltergeist ²

As I mentioned previously, I went to see Poltergeist a lot in the summer of 1982. There were a number of reasons for that, the first one being, I just loved the movie. That's probably the most important reason of all.

But it was also really easy to just go see it again and again. It was rated PG, so I could get in without a parent; the Northpoint was just one bus ride away (the 19 Polk) from where I lived; and school was out, most of my friends were away for the summer, and I was bored. It was better than sitting at home watching "The Brady Bunch" reruns all day, (which, don't get me wrong, I did a LOT).

One of the best things about the movie is the kids. Spielberg--aside from the travesty that was Short Round in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom--has a knack with child actors, and the kids in Poltergeist are cute without being cloying, especially the little girl...oh crap. What was her name in the movie again?



Right. Carol Anne!

But seriously, Heather O'Rourke really was a find; totally adorable, but also kind of spooky at times.



Sadly, she died young, and her death, combined with the murder of Dominique Dunne, (who played her teenage sister), and the subsequent deaths of some of the actors in the sequel, built up belief that there was some kind of "Poltergeist Curse" plaguing cast members. Except that, you know, two of those actors that died were already old or sick when they were cast in the sequel, so...

Perhaps the weirdest lingering effect of the early death of O'Rourke are the countless video tributes that you can find posted on YouTube today. Seriously, just search for "Heather O'Rourke tribute," and you've got yourself a day's worth of creepy entertainment.

I'll end this post with some more items from my Genre Book, this time just a couple of newspaper ads...

The Road Warrior

As I've mentioned before, in looking back my 1982 movie experiences, sometimes I have no idea where I actually saw a movie, and other times, the memory is so clear, it's like I went last week. For The Road Warrior, it's like the latter, as I instantly remembered that my parents and I went to see it on a Saturday at the Stonestown Twin.

How come it's always the crappy theaters that are still around? Indeed, the Stonestown is still around, although these days it shows mainly indie and foreign films. But, come to think of it, The Road Warrior is technically a foreign film, isn't it?

So, at the time, I had not seen the first movie, Mad Max, though I did know of its existence and was aware that Road Warrior was kind of a sequel, but kind of not, which is to say, you really didn't need to see that first one to get any enjoyment from its follow-up. (And in fact, I've only seen parts of Mad Max since, and only the badly-dubbed version that was forced upon American audiences for years.)

And enjoy The Road Warrior I did. I mean, come on. The movie is nuts.



In re-watching it now, its flaws show through a little stronger. The car chases and crashes are certainly still spectacular, but the movie is pretty low budget, so director George Miller relies on speeding up the film a lot of times, (especially whenever "nitro" is engaged), and there's also some weird reverse motion stuff here and there. Also, the autogyro moments are pretty lame. While I'm definitely a proponent for using traditional effects when possible, there were many moments in watching it again when I wished CG had been in use way back then.

It's also kind of sad watching it now, knowing the trajectory Mel Gibson would eventually follow. He's definitely amazing in the movie, and man, was he a handsome mofo. But I have to admit I'm not that upset that he's not the star of the latest Mad Max movie that will be coming our way...

There are a few things in my Genre Book to include here. The first is an ad that includes a blurb from Herb Caen, who wasn't a movie critic, but had enough local name recognition as a columnist that I guess he had some influence when it came to such matters...

And here are few capsule reviews, from the Examiner, the East Bay Express, and the Chronicle.

Poltergeist

On Wednesday, June 2nd, 1982, I went to a preview screening of Poltergeist. Preview screenings were always pretty exciting to me, and I got to go to a lot of them because my father worked for a company that did t-shirts and merchandising, and they would often get passes. When you're a kid, getting to see something before everyone else does feels great. This one was at the Northpoint Theater, and I think it was preceded by dinner across the street at Caesar's Restaurant. A fun night!

I'll just state this up front: I absolutely LOVED this movie. Adored. Which is why I ended up seeing it a total of SIX TIMES in the theater that year. Six times!!

I thought it was funny, and scary, and I loved the dynamic of the family, and it even made me cry a few times. (OK, a lot of times.) Yeah. I cried during Poltergeist. Puberty! It's a crazy thing.

Since I saw it so many times, (SIX!!) I'm going to save some of my thoughts on the movie for future posts about it. (SIX!) But I can say this: In rewatching it, I'm kind of amazed that I can still basically recite all the dialogue in it. It's embedded in my noggin.

And being that I loved the movie back then, I was compelled to write a review of it right away. It's really kind of, (OK, totally), embarrassing, but I'm just gonna suck it up and include it here for your amusement. (Click the image to magnify.)

In my review, I mention how there was a bit of controversy surrounding who actually directed the movie: Tobe Hooper, or producer Steven Spielberg. This was something I had read about in the Pink Section of the Chronicle, in the following article.

Back then, I didn't really give a crap, and really didn't understand who Tobe Hooper was, or the cache he had in the horror genre, as I had yet to see his The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Eventually I did, and could understand why there was serious doubt about him directing something as clichedly "Spielbergian" as Poltergeist. I'd like to think it was just a friendly collaboration, and the movie ended up with the best (and some of the worst) aspects of both the directors, (just watch the scene where the family is doing a patented "staring into the light" Spielberg moment, but what they're looking at is the complete destruction of their house; wonder and horror at the same time), but I have a feeling Spielberg probably did most of the heavy lifting...

I'll have more to say about just why I think I fell in love with the movie in some future posts, as well as some more newspaper clippings and articles...

Swamp Thing

The above trailer is hopelessly murky, but I had to post it because the voiceover kind of illustrates why I love the movie Swamp Thing. "Monsters and midgets!...An incredibly adventure that grows on you!" Surely, this is one of director Wes Craven's masterworks!

Now, I am a huge fan of the Alan Moore "Swamp Thing" comics; they're what got me into comics in the 80's. And while the movie has absolutely nothing to do with those comics, I think it is because of the movie that DC decided to revamp the series in the first place, so it at least deserves our thanks, if not our love.

And yeah, I do love it. I remember it being a really fun day at the movies. I think by the time we saw it on April 17th, it had moved to the second run theaters, (it opened in February), and we saw it at the 4 Star for a mere three bucks.

I'm pretty sure that at first, I was a little confused about it. Was it intentionally funny? Was I laughing at it, or with it? But by the time I saw it again, most likely on video, it was clear it wasn't a movie that was taking itself too seriously. I mean, you can practically see the zipper running up the Swamp Thing's back.

And it's that goofy humor that made me love it. Indeed, there is a midget monster in it, and there's a completely awesome moment when Swamp Thing starts to grow a new arm, after it's chopped off by bad guys, and during the process we see this tiny little twig hand start to pop out of his shoulder and make a fist.

Also, Adrienne Barbeau runs around in a wet shirt a lot, and what's not to love about that?

And I wasn't the only one who liked it. I remember watching Siskel and Ebert talk about the movie on their show, and I know they both loved it, even while they were cracking up about it. I can't find that original show, but they do talk about it in an episode about "Buried Treasures." I'd include the video here, but it can't be embedded without autoplay turned on, (annoying!), so go here to view the episode, and skip to the 18 minute mark to see the Swamp Thing discussion. (It also includes, right before that, some discussion of a previous Mulled Movie, The Wanderers.)

Only have a few things from my "book" for this one. First is a newspaper ad...

And the second is a couple of review clips, including another from "Trashola"...

I didn't get to re-watch the movie before posting this, but am happy to report it is available on Netflix Instant, and it's also available on Amazon as a cheap rental, (free to Prime customers). A re-watching is definitely in my future.

Cat People

In 1982, there were a couple of movies I loved so much, I went to see them again and again. Cat People was one of them.

Now, Cat People is kind of a hard film to admit you love. I can understand seeing it and laughing at its cheesiness and complete implausibility; you either go along with it, and view it as a sort of adult fairy tale, or you don't. And if you don't, I get it, believe me.

But I did go along with it, and still do. Sure, watching it in recent years I am a little less able to look past its flaws, but I still find it extremely watchable, and will still willfully admit to loving it.

Since this is a movie I ended up seeing several more times over the course of the year, I think I'll break up my thoughts on it into several different posts. I also have a lot of ephemera related to the movie that I'll have to try and dig up, and hope to post that stuff too. So for today, I'll talk about the experience of seeing it for the first time.

On Saturday, April 3rd, 1982, my parents and I ventured out to the Plaza 1&2 Theater, which was by Serramonte in Colma. Even though it was a two-screen theater, it was pretty big, and had a parking lot, which was always an added bonus on a weekend. I'm pretty sure the theater wasn't very crowded, despite the movie being released the day before, (it wasn't exactly a blockbuster), but I do remember there were two women sitting behind us who had a lot to say about Annette O'Toole's naked breasts during the movie's swimming pool scene.

So, initial thoughts first: I knew I liked Nastassja (then "Nastassia") Kinski after seeing her in One From the Heart the month before, and she was just as watchable in Cat People. Indeed, I can't imagine anyone else doing the role justice; the character of Irena has to feel almost other-worldly; you can't place where she's from, but she certainly doesn't look or sound like someone you'd meet in every day life.

Pair an actress I already knew I liked, with a genre, horror, that I was a long-standing fan of, and you've got something twelve-year-old me was almost guaranteed to love. Set the thing in New Orleans--a city I had, at that point, not been to, but held fascination for me because of family ties to the area--and bingo; I was hooked to the point of near obsession.

I'll get into some other possible explanations for loving it so much in future posts. I will say that the purchasing of things related to the movie began right after we left the theater, as we drove to a record store on Geary Street and bought the theme song single by David Bowie. (I believe the actual soundtrack LP, which I would also end up buying, hadn't been released yet.) You gotta love a song that has leopard roars in the mix!

I added quite a few newspaper ads and reviews to my "Genre Book," so let's end this with a look at those. (As always, click the images to see larger versions.) In May, I'll more to say about the movie, so stay tuned!

Here's the first part of a review from the East Bay Express...

You can read the rest of the review here, along with some other shorter pieces and listings, including another from Trashola.

This is an interview with director Paul Schrader from BAM Magazine (remember that?!). I'll have to put it in here in four parts since the original clipping is pretty large...

An American Werewolf in London

The final movie in my birthday slumber party was An American Werewolf in London, but first things first: what's up with the above trailer? It's pretty obviously a "teaser" trailer, but it manages to give absolutely no indication of what the movie is actually like, which is to say, a horror comedy, and is kind of all around lame. (The full trailer is better, but still kind of sucks.)

I'm drawing a bit of a blank on just where I originally saw American Werewolf. I have memories of seeing either it, or The Howling, or both, at a drive-in in 1981 with my parents, but I also found this flyer, in my "Genre Book," for a sneak preview screening at the Royal Theater.

I really don't remember going to that, so maybe my father went, and saved the flyer, and then took me and my mother to see both at the drive-in at a later point.

I will say, its existence on video in January of 1982 puts the kibosh on my assumption that movies took about a year to make it to home video back then, as Werewolf came out in August of 1981. What we watched that day was most likely a rental from Captain Video, the only place we rented movies from at that time.

Now, I remember liking the movie a lot, enough to warrant watching it for a second time at my birthday party, so my rating it a 3 1/2 in my ledger is a bit perplexing, especially since I gave Ghost Story--a much worse movie--a three. But then again, I probably shouldn't put much faith into any of those ratings; I was twelve!

Still, the movie does have flaws even a twelve-year-old could recognize, the biggest of which is its ending. It's just ludicrous and lame. (Spoiler alert, but: So, he basically freaks out, transforms, causes a ruckus in Piccadilly Circus, and is shot. The ending is really, really abrupt, and just feels like Landis didn't know how to end it. Plus, are we really supposed to believe those cops were able to shoot around Jenny Agutter in that dark alley, killing David instantly?)

The numerous dream sequences in the beginning of the movie don't really work, either, and too often just seem like an excuse for John Landis to do something he thought would be cool, like having Nazi werewolves go on a rampage.

The film is much more successful when it's funny, and it's that combination of laughs and scares that makes it something still worthy of watching.

This is probably my favorite scene in the movie; it's a perfect blend of the disgusting and the comedic:



That moment when Jack says "DAVID!" gets me every time.

I'll end this with another bit from that Genre Book: a brief mention of the movie from an issue of Trashola, and a mini-review from the East Bay Express.

Halloween II

On Saturday, January 16th, 1982, I went to see Halloween II for the second time.

And I have no memory of it.

So last week I went to the library--something I had mentioned in a previous post I might do--to look up old movie listings in the local papers.

It was a lot of fun! I didn't have time to look every movie up I need to, so I'll be going back, which is fine by me. It's kind of cool utilizing a clunky old medium in this digital age: All their newspapers are on microfilm, so you have to load each roll up on the machine, get it centered, and zoooooom through to the date you want. You can print out from the machines, but I just chose to take notes. (And one photo.)

So, according to the Chronicle's movie listings for that day, Halloween II--which had come out in October of '81, was playing at the Royal Theater on Polk Street, and at the Spruce Drive-In. (You can see a picture of the Spruce at this article about old S.F. theaters.) I can't be sure, but I would guess I saw it at the Royal.

I also have no memories of where I saw it the first time, which I imagine was right after it came out, since I was a big fan of the first Halloween (which I had only seen on VHS, at that point). But I do remember being a tad disappointed by it. For one, I was forever distracted by Jamie Lee Curtis's incredibly bad wig. For another, it just felt like another of the countless rip-offs the first movie had spawned.

And there was also the whole "She's his sister!" plot point that was thrown in. I think at the time, I wasn't that bothered by it, and probably kind of liked that it "made sense;" that there was a reason Michael Myers was so relentless in his pursuit.

But I realized on later viewings that it actually harms the first film. It's much scarier to think that this guy is just randomly killing women in his home town, and there is no rational reasoning to it.

Ironically, some of the biggest criticisms the sequel got was that it was too gory and gratuitous; that it threw out everything that made the first film memorable, and was just another dumb slasher movie with a higher body count.

This is ironic because, if you are to believe the following article from "Cinefantastique" magazine, which I saved a copy of, all of these gory additions were the work of John Carpenter himself, who wasn't actually the film's director. (Click image for a larger view.)

Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. Perhaps Carpenter just thought he was adding what the audience would want, seeing as how gorier ripoffs were making money at the time. But there's a lot more wrong with the movie than the added gore, including a lack of compelling characters; the fact that the hospital Laurie's trapped in doesn't appear to have any other patients (aside from a ward full of babies); and a real meanness at the (spoiler alert!) killing of a guy who Laurie obviously likes, and who seems to like her, too.

As for this last point, interestingly, when the movie is shown on TV, it sometimes has a different ending, one that's a little more upbeat (albeit pretty silly)...



I'll end this post with two reviews of the movie I found saved in my book. Neither are mine, (I guess I wasn't compelled to write one at the time), but one is, I believe, also from "Cinefantastique" magazine, and the other is from an issue of "Trashola."

Halloween II is definitely a failure, as far as sequels goes. But it's still a hell of a lot better than the many sequels and remakes that followed, including the only other one to star Jamie Lee Curtis, Halloween H20. (And which I saw opening weekend at the AMC on Van Ness. Just for the record.)

Ghost Story

On Saturday, January 9th, 1982, my parents and I went to see Ghost Story at the Royal Theater on Polk Street.

I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Ghost Story is a mess of a movie, and even as an eleven-year-old, I was able to recognize that fact, which you'll see proof of in a moment. It's not very scary, way too reliant on gross-out effects, and basically a waste of the talents of four Hollywood legends. There is, however, one good thing in it: Alice Krige is suitably spooky and odd as the ghostly love interest. She almost makes it worth watching.

And what makes the movie's badness even more crushing is that it's based on the really, really great scary novel by Peter Straub. I'm pretty sure I didn't read the book until after I saw the movie, (and even recall writing a book report about it). I loved it, and have re-read it a few times since then, and I highly recommend it to any fan of horror fiction.

So, since there really isn't much to say about this one, (I did re-watch it on cable last year; it still sucks), I'll try and entertain with some historic images instead.

As I mentioned in my first post, along with my movie ledger, I began to keep a scrap book I called my "Genre Book," in which I kept clipped newspaper ads, movie reviews, and anything else pertinent to any horror, science fiction, or fantasy film that was appropriately "genre."

It didn't last long, but I did have some stuff about Ghost Story in it, including these two ads, (one has a list of NYC theaters showing the movie, so it must be from the Village Voice, which my dad read).

There's also a couple of capsule reviews. This is from the Chronicle's "Pink Section," and the Little Man is suitably asleep.

The other capsule review is from the zine "Trashola," which I was a big fan of. It was a self-published zine by a guy named Jim Morton, and you could find it for free around town at record shops and comic book stores. It was pretty awesome, and a big influence on me. (Click for larger size.)

(Jim Morton went on to contribute to the Re/Search Incredibly Strange Films book, and is still around, writing about movies and popping up on podcasts here and there.)

Also included in this scrapbook were a few of my own movie reviews. And yes, they are as embarrassing as you'd imagine movie reviews written by an eleven and twelve-year-old would be. I consider myself very brave for including this personal Ghost Story review here, so please refrain from any snide comments regarding my prose stylings and how they haven't improved much in thirty years. KTHX.

So, while the movie Ghost Story was a total disappointment, at least it inspired me to try and describe that disappointment in words, something it seems I continue to do on a semi-weekly basic 30 years later.